Carleas wrote:I know you identified yourself as "Gloominary" when you signed up here, but I'm going to call you Poopyface. You are entitled to think of yourself as "Gloominary", but, by your reasoning, you aren't entitled to have me perceive you as anything other than Poopyface if that's how I perceive you, and, apparently, you aren't entitled to complain that I have chosen to call you Poopyface, despite that any reasonable observer would guess that you would prefer not to be called Poopyface.

This is an admittedly and intentionally juvenile spin on what it seems like you're doing. There is no law, nor should there be, that says that when you tell me your name is John, I am prohibited from responding, "No, I think I'll call you Mike instead, Mike's a much better name for you than John." There should be no such law. But we need no such law, people grant to others the dignity of the name they offer. If someone says they are John, then we take them at their word and call them John. I've met many people who go by a name that isn't their given name and isn't their legal name, and yet it is still obvious to me, and seems obvious to everyone I've seen them interact with, that the name they indicate as the name they'd prefer to be called is the name that it is polite to call them.

The parallel with sex is not exact, but it is importantly similar. Men and women occupy different social roles, not just different sexual roles, and we can think of these differences separately. We know that a transwoman will not menstruate or get pregnant, but insofar as these sorts of considerations are irrelevant, where sex serves only the social purpose of signaling how we treat someone and how we expect them to behave in non-sexual and non-reproductive settings, to self-identify and present as a certain sex should be accorded the same courtesy as we accord the decision to introduce oneself by a particular name or to, through style of dress or grooming, to identify oneself as a member of some subculture.

This includes the use of gendered bathrooms (though they be a relic of a much more prudish past). To the extent there is a harm presented, police the harm, not the poor proxy for an expectation of harm. If someone is actually attacking or harassing people in a bathroom, the sex of the people involved is roughly irrelevant. There is no epidemic of abuse of these policies, and the places where self-selection is most respected, and where transsexuals are most prevalent, there is no attendant increase in the sorts of negative behaviors that critics claim as motivation. This charge is bullshit, and clearly ad hoc.

So recognize people as a matter of basic manners. You aren't making a biological claim when you treat someone as the gender with which they identify, and you most likely won't have an opportunity to test whether they have the genitals or genetic basis to backup their claimed identity. But in the same way you won't ask someone for their license or birth certificate, and would likely respect their proffered named even if you did find that it didn't match their birth or legal name, you should respect peoples other choices of self-identity.

Mr Reasonable wrote:Not trying to judge or say I know what's right or wrong here, but for real I don't understand how anyone could want to bang a fake vagina made of of scrotum skin.

I know I have seen you on here shilling for Fleshlight, so I feel like the fakeness of the vagina can't have much to do with it.

So if I prefer to be called, and thought of as Native Canadian, even tho I'm not, because it's my 'social role', presumably that's okay with you?And if I get a race change, and legally update my status to Native Canadian, so I can collect benefits and join the reservation, that's okay with you too?

At no time is a persons physiology completely irrelevant.We interact with women differently, not just because of their minds, but because of their bodies, we're less inclined to be rough with them, we're more inclined to get things for them and so on.

A persons psychology is shaped by their physiology and neurology. Try as he may, a man with a fundamentally male body and brain will never know what it's like to feel and think like a woman, nor will he be able to behave as such. You think like somehow we can just magically separate psychology from physiology and neurology.

Reality doesn't work like that, but even if it could, again, just because you say, you have a fully female psychology, doesn't mean you do.Names like Joe, Jack, Patrick, Peter and Poopyface don't actually refer to anything, and so they're meaningless, in these contexts what's important is consistency and civility, but man and woman refer to something a person is supposed to have, in a strict, biological sense, or perhaps in a looser, psychological sense, just like openminded, closeminded, extroversion, introversion, agreeableness and disagreeableness and so on are supposed to refer to qualities a person has, and so just because you claim to possess such qualities, doesn't mean you actually posses them, and you shouldn't be called by things you don't posses, because it's confusing, and misleading.

And now faxuwomen are joining women's sports, endangering women's lives, and placing them at a disadvantage.

Last edited by Gloominary on Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

This includes the use of gendered bathrooms (though they be a relic of a much more prudish past). To the extent there is a harm presented, police the harm, not the poor proxy for an expectation of harm. If someone is actually attacking or harassing people in a bathroom, the sex of the people involved is roughly irrelevant. There is no epidemic of abuse of these policies, and the places where self-selection is most respected, and where transsexuals are most prevalent, there is no attendant increase in the sorts of negative behaviors that critics claim as motivation. This charge is bullshit, and clearly ad hoc.

I haven't seen any data on faxuwomen and crime, so I can't comment.But it seems to me, because faxuwomen are essentially, men, women are more likely to be sexually harassed and assaulted if we allow men to be with them when they're at their most vulnerable.

Faxuwomen represent a tiny portion of the population (less than 1%, and of those many may still choose to use the men's restrooms, reducing the figure even further), so permitting them to use the women's restrooms mightn't, visibly increase sexual harassment and assaults, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't increasing them, it might just mean it's falling under the radar.In all likelihood, putting people who're essentially men, many of whom are heterosexuals with masculine libidos and physiques, with women when they're at their most vulnerable, will increase the likelihood of spying, sexual harassment, assault and so on, however slightly, on account of their slight population.

WendyDarling wrote:So Carleas, it's polite to enable the delusions of the mentally ill trans? Encourage all delusions to be PC since it's their call.

I've suggested no such thing. Rather, I think there is a fully consistent and reality-based understanding of sex as a social fact distinct from its biological facts, and that it is not delusional to prefer to have a social sex different from ones biological sex, and to modify ones body to better present their preferred social sex.

Gloominary wrote:So if I prefer to be called, and thought of as Native Canadian, even tho I'm not, because it's my 'social role', presumably that's okay with you?And if I get a race change, and legally update my status to Native Canadian, so I can collect benefits and join the reservation, that's okay with you too?

To your first question, yes. To your second, in which you ask the same question but wrap it in the questionable practice of extant race-based discrimination, I think the issue comes in through the race-based discrimination, and not through granting someone's sincere conviction that they are best understood socially as whatever they present themselves to be.

We seem to have no problem with hair dye, colored contacts, fake tans, shaving or waxing, plastic surgery, etc., despite those body modifications being undertaken for their social effects and denying the physiological reality of genetic traits and aging in the same sense that a sex change denies a physiological reality of biological sex.

Gloominary wrote:I haven't seen any data on faxuwomen and crime, so I can't comment.

I take this as a retraction of your prior claim:

Gloominary wrote:many faxuwomen mayn't even be sincere about believing they are, or wanting to become women, they may feign to, just so they have access to things like the women's restroom, so they can spy and prey on women, sexually harass and assault them.

Men shouldn't refer to themselves as women, and vice versa, it's confusing, and deceptive.

A heterosexual man, or lesbian may become interested in a fauxwoman and pursue them, only to find out later he's really a man, and lose interest, wasting time and energy in the process.Now most of the time you can tell faxuwomen from real women, but not always.

Fauxsexuals are charlatans, imposters, and mentally ill.

Last edited by Gloominary on Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A heterosexual man, or lesbian may become interested in a fauxwoman and pursue them, only to find out later she's really a man, and lose interest, wasting time and energy in the process.Now most of the time you can tell a faxuwomen from a real woman, but not always.

Fauxsexuals are charlatans, imposters, and mentally ill.

...find out in the bedroom which gets the fauxsexual beat up or killed, especially by hetro men who have no mercy on the delusional, mentally disturbed. It would be nice if science put this issue to rest regarding the psychology of the fauxsexual mind, but as you said science pussyfoots around these issues not wanting to set reality rightside up.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

A heterosexual man, or lesbian may become interested in a fauxwoman and pursue them, only to find out later she's really a man, and lose interest, wasting time and energy in the process.Now most of the time you can tell a faxuwomen from a real woman, but not always.

Fauxsexuals are charlatans, imposters, and mentally ill.

...find out in the bedroom which gets the fauxsexual beat up or killed, especially by hetro men who have no mercy on the delusional, mentally disturbed. It would be nice if science put this issue to rest regarding the psychology of the fauxsexual mind, but as you said science pussyfoots around these issues not wanting to set reality rightside up.

You are not entitled to an accurate description of anyone else's genitals.

WendyDarling wrote:find out in the bedroom which gets the fauxsexual beat up or killed

Ah, so you're denying people the dignity of defining their own social identity and demanding that they be stigmatized as insane and outcast for their own safety. How compassionate. I would guess the people themselves would prefer you let them worry about that.

WendyDarling wrote:It would be nice if science put this issue to rest regarding the psychology of the [trans]sexual mind

This sounds like an express rejection of science, since you seem only to be willing to entertain how science comes down on this if the conclusion matches your preconceptions, i.e. "It would be nice if science would confirm what I already believe without good evidence." If science finds differences in transsexuals' brains and hormone balance, the existence of intersex individuals of various kinds, the existence of transsexuals in non-human primates, etc., you will reject it as biased. Deja vu.

According to Carleas, a child pretending to be an alligator, is an alligator and should be kept in a swamp in a zoo. Likewise, a child pretending to be a criminal, ought to be thrown in jail. All moderns are what they say they are. And if you don't participate in the charades, if you don't encourage this social malady, then you are ill yourself.

Ah, so you're denying people the dignity of defining their own social identity and demanding that they be stigmatized as insane and outcast for their own safety. How compassionate. I would guess the people themselves would prefer you let them worry about that.

It's not just a social identity Carleas which is your hangup, not ours. You mean leave it to the liars then spend tax dollars sorting out the mess when they get murdered for lying? No thanks.

This sounds like an express rejection of science, since you seem only to be willing to entertain how science comes down on this if the conclusion matches your preconceptions, i.e. "It would be nice if science would confirm what I already believe without good evidence." If science finds differences in transsexuals' brains and hormone balance, the existence of intersex individuals of various kinds, the existence of transsexuals in non-human primates, etc., you will reject it as biased. Deja vu.

If the scientists are lying liberals themselves or fauxsexuals, damn right I'll reject it.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:According to Carleas, a child pretending to be an alligator, is an alligator and should be kept in a swamp in a zoo.

There are a few things here.

1) You're talking about children, and children aren't full agents and are and should be treated differently.

2) You're using an example that doesn't exist. Since my argument is premised on full agents sincerely expressing their self-identity, it's inherently scoped to identities individuals sincerely express.

3) Just as I haven't suggested that transwomen need to take birth control, it doesn't follow from someone sincerely identifying as X that we should treat them as X for all intents and purposes. I don't know what treating someone like an alligator in social contexts entails, but on that point see (2).

WendyDarling wrote:It's not just a social identity Carleas...

Yes, it is. You and Gloominary are concerned about the shape of people's genitals, but in practice you aren't being asked or expected to give any thought to anyone's genitals.

WendyDarling wrote:If the scientists are lying liberals...

But here again, your test for whether a scientist is a "lying liberal" is whether their research supports a conclusion you don't like. That's fallacious.

Carleas wrote:Yes, it is. You and Gloominary are concerned about the shape of people's genitals, but in practice you aren't being asked or expected to give any thought to anyone's genitals.

Yes, I am as that is what gender entails via biology, physiology, and psychology, gender entails all biological female anatomy and dispensations derived from that female physical anatomy. Real females have the entire package, fauxfemales don't and never will.

WendyDarling wrote:If the scientists are lying liberals...

But here again, your test for whether a scientist is a "lying liberal" is whether their research supports a conclusion you don't like. That's fallacious.

If they are a liberal, in other words, a liar, then all of their research is full of falsehoods. It doesn't have to do with their conclusions so much as it has to do with their ideology to shamelessly push agendas not based in objective reality.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

I haven't met any liberals who were not willfully in denial of objective reality, so my answer would be yes, all of them, liberal minds are infected with a virus of social, mental, emotional, and physical degeneracy which is leading the the decline of Western civilization by the propagation of their lies on a massive scale.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

Yes, a sellout republican like most in the party are right now. If Trump drained the swamp there would only be a few public servants left on the floor of congress, standing next to Trump. Trump has beaten those republicans in the house and senate and they are pissed that he is rocking their long term boat.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

I think that one of the 2 people to come out already and endorse him for 2020 reelection was indicted today for stealing campaign funds. They said he bought clothes at a golf course and listed it as spending money on balls for wounded warriors. Paid his dental bills with it. Took the family to Lake Tahoe and Italy. All kinds of shit. So far then that just leaves Trump and 1 guy.

Willfully ignorant of objective reality?

Claims about things like, "objective reality" are the stuff that philosophers talk about, and largely those debates are unsettled and consist mostly of logical connections between metaphysical entities, (and I don't mean your voodoo witchcraft kind of metaphysical entities).

You should really reword whatever it is that you're trying to say so that you can be understood by people who are used to seeing the terms your using mean something technical as opposed to just part of an emotivist coping response.

You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

Objective reality, a man is born with a penis and scrotum and a woman is born with a vagina and reproductive organs, thus they are identified as such respectively and we don't waste time debating the ridiculousness of social constructs to name non-biologically irrelevant individuals the same as biologically born individuals...a debate brought on by liberal lies...duh.

Claims about things like, "objective reality" are the stuff that philosophers talk about, and largely those debates are unsettled and consist mostly of logical connections between metaphysical entities, (and I don't mean your voodoo witchcraft kind of metaphysical entities).

Liberal lies don't want them to be settled that's my point.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

WendyDarling wrote:Yes, I am [being asked or expected to give any thought to their genitals] as that is what gender entails

You have a weird way of interacting socially, and I would kindly ask you to stop thinking about my genitals.

Seriously though, it does seem very strange to think that you have to picture the genitals of whoever you're interacting with in order to have a sufficient mental model of them for basic social interactions. Most social interactions don't involve genitals, couldn't possibly involve genitals, wouldn't be the slightest bit different if the genitals involved were different. One knows so little about the genitals of the people one interacts with, even if you do hold an image of their genitals in mind to help make sense of the interaction, you are almost certainly mistaken on a regular basis (e.g. hermaphrodites, accident victims, passing transsexuals, etc., not to mention the numerous small ways in which a person's genitals can differ from the norm), and the image in your mind is just a useful fiction.

WendyDarling wrote:If they are a liberal, in other words, a liar...

So, you will accept scientific findings that conflict with your beliefs when they are not the findings of a liberal, and you can tell whether or not they are the findings of a liberal based on whether or not the findings confirm your beliefs... This is not an effective method for aligning one's beliefs with objective reality.

But how do we determine to which referent a given symbol should apply? A man is a man, a woman is a woman seems straightforward enough. But those are just self referencing statements that don't tell us anything regarding the meaning of the terms in any given context.

Check out this guy...he's got a theory of names. It's interesting stuff. Sometimes Wendy, when your entire world view is a big hilarious set of political memes and your overall view of things is actually very small, the only thing you can do when you don't understand is attack the other. Like, trannies make you feel sick to your stomach and so they must be wrong, and people who say they're not are the bad guys those lying liberals.

It's sad to watch. Here...educate yourself a little. Objective reality as you call it, if there is such a thing, would be inherently apolitical.

This is a philosophy forum god damnit. So learn some philosophy and act like it.